The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Claremont's smear of DiLorenzo (NR book review)

10/9 | myself

[GOPcapitalist]

As you may know, the Claremonsters launched their latest and probably most widespread attack on Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" this week with an article in National Review by Ken Masugi. The article follows the same line taken by the two previous Claremonsters tasked with smearing DiLorenzo by the Abratollah Jaffa - Tom Krannawitter and Richard Ferrier. Rather than appearing on the Claremont or Declaration Foundation websites like the previous attacks, this one made it into a more mainstream conservative publication. I read the review today in the new issue of NR and immediately experienced a sense of disgust that the publication would print such poorly written bilge. To critique DiLorenzo's book is one thing, but Masugi's article is little more than intellectually bankrupt rhetoric. Compared to the old days of NR when Frank Meyer took Lincoln to task and even when the Abratollah actually fought his battles himself, the lack of quality in the present piece is shocking and in need of address. A dissection and rebuttal of the latest and most prominent Claremonster attack on DiLorenzo's book is therefore in order. Excerpts from the NR article are printed in bold:

I. "Fortunately we are not dependent on DiLorenzo for an understanding of Lincoln's political philosophy; Lincoln himself summarized it in the Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural. For Lincoln, the preservation of equality of natural rights demands a strong government, but one limited in its powers. This founding principle leads politically to the need for consent of the governed, the basis of our republican government."

Contrary to Masugi's assertions, the Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural were not reflections of Lincoln's political philosophy but rather his rhetorical gifts. Above all, Lincoln was a pragmatic politician who played the games of politics with amazing skill and frequency. His asserted devotion to a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" in the Gettysburg speech makes a brilliant rhetorical point, but does not reflect Lincoln's own political behavior in any sense. Lincoln went to war to prevent the formation of a government by a clear majority of the southern people and imposed military reign in its place upon conquest of that region. Such behavior further makes Masugi's claim that Lincoln's political philosophy revolved around principles of "the need for consent of the governed" absurd.

Lincoln did advocate and exercise his power in a strong government, but the limits in its power that Masugi speaks of were severely lacking. One such case happened famously in Lincoln's shunning of a court ruling contrary to his assumed and unconstitutional unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. Following the violation of citizen's equal rights before the law in Maryland, Justice Roger Taney authored the opinion of Ex Parte Merryman for the US Circuit Court and had a copy hand delivered to Lincoln himself. Lincoln shunned the decision, though the court in its proper role had exercised a perfectly legitimate and constitutionally sound limitation on government powers exercised through the executive and military. The incident is but a single of many virtually unrestrained exercises of power by Lincoln during his administration.

II. "DiLorenzo then complains of the war measures Lincoln took after secession: military tribunals, restrictions on civil liberties, and the suppression of newspapers. But he doesn't mention the South's suppression of discussion about abolition"

In this complaint Masugi commits a fallacious line of argument, and perhaps intentionally. He notes DiLorenzo's complaint with Lincoln, responds with the assertion that the south "did it too," and moves on as if the issue has been settled while simultaneously criticizing DiLorenzo for failing to write about the South's shortcomings. Only one problem - DiLorenzo's book was never about the South's shortcomings and never sought to take up that issue in the first place. It was about Lincoln though, and despite Masugi's best efforts to divert attention away from the validity of DiLorenzo's complaints with Lincoln, they remain unaddressed in his supposed critique. Yet again, DiLorenzo's argument remains unaddressed by Masugi.

III. "DiLorenzo also contends that Lincoln violated international law in his "savage" conduct of the war. Not once does DiLorenzo entertain the thought that a disunited America might have become prey for the designs of European imperial powers, which would have put an end to the experiment in self-government"

Masugi employs a clear and apparently intentional distraction tactic to divert attention away from DiLorenzo's original argument - war crimes under Lincoln's command. Notice that his "response" to DiLorenzo on the issue is a wholly unrelated reference to fears of European imperialism in North America - an issue that has very little if anything to do with DiLorenzo's commentary about war crimes and fails to address it in any significant way.

IV. "And for the destruction caused by Sherman's march through Georgia, historian Victor Davis Hanson has observed: 'It is a hard thing for contemporary liberalism to envision war as not always evil, but as sometimes very necessary - and very necessarily brutal if great evil is to disappear.'"

Masugi's comment here comes as if an arbitrary rhetorical expression constitutes enough to dismiss a factually formulated argument. It doesn't, and Masugi's chosen quote conveys little more than excuse making of an "ends justify means" variety.  By implication of his quote, Masugi seems to be attempting to cast DiLorenzo's critique of Lincoln's style of warfare as a view of "contemporary liberalism." Nothing could be further from the truth, as the distinction of justly waged war and unjustly waged war comes directly from traditional conservative Christian moral absolutism, not modern liberalism.

Thomas Aquinas, a famed Christian philosopher and ethicist of the scholastic age, set forth the qualifications of a morally waged war. Aquinas reasoned that a war may be justly waged when three conditions are met: that of sovereign authority to do so, that of a just cause for its being waged, and thirdly "it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil" Aquinas cites St. Augustine in giving examples of the wicked waging of war: "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war." Many such elements, including drives for vengeance and harm and the lust for power exhibited their ugly heads in the brand of warfare waged against civilians by northern troops.

Even if one believes that the North had fought for the just end of freeing the slaves (it did not do so according to no less a source than Lincoln himself), and even if the North's war was waged duly under proper authority, its immoral waging renders the war unjust. Aquinas states this clearly in his writings: "For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention." DiLorenzo also readily admits in his book that had the war been waged to free the slaves, had it been properly conducted, and had it been waged in a moral way, it would have been justified. His argument, which he supports by citing the rampant Northern war crimes, demonstrates that this was simply not the case, therefore making the North's waging of war unjust and immoral. Yet again, this argument of DiLorenzo remains unaddressed by Masugi.

V. "But why would Lincoln indulge in these criminal actions? Since he was a racist and had no great interest in freeing the slaves, DiLorenzo concludes, his "real agenda" must have been the imposition of a "mercantilist/Whig" high tariff economic system"

Masugi's assertion here is a clear case of scarecrow construction, but first let us examine the conclusions he attributes to DiLorenzo but apparently disputes himself. The fact of Lincoln's racism (racism being defined by the belief that a certain skin color instills qualifies conditions of superiority in that skin color over another)  is thoroughly supported by Lincoln's statements. Among them are the following:

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position." - Lincoln at Ottowa, August 21, 1858

"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?" - Lincoln, speech fragments, circa 1859

Next we may turn to Lincoln's position on the issue of freeing the slaves. I have recognized many times before that Lincoln very clearly had a passive moral opposition to slavery. Politically, he took a fairly firm stance in opposition to its expansion into the territories. Beyond that, Lincoln played politics, which led him to adopt positions opposed to the abolition of slavery and even engage in efforts to prolong the institution's existence. One such case of the latter came in 1861 when Lincoln endorsed - in his inaugural address of all places - a recently passed constitutional amendment that stated

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

The measure would have effectively prevented any future amendment abolishing slavery, likely extending the institution years if not decades beyond what would otherwise have been its fate had the measure been ratified. Lincoln's involvement in this constitutional amendment extended far beyond simply endorsing it though. Lincoln himself was the motivation behind its introduction in committee several months earlier, as is indicated by the senator who introduced it, William Seward. Following the proposal's introduction, Seward wrote to Lincoln to inform him of his actions stating "I offered three propositions which seemed to me to cover the ground of the suggestion made by you, through Mr. Weed, as I understand it." In other words, Seward introduced the measure after being informed of it by Thurlow Weed, who conveyed it as a message from Lincoln, who he met with in Springfield a few days earlier. When the amendment passed Congress two months later on the eve of Lincoln's inauguration, his support of the measure was further cited as the main reason for its success. Eyewitness Henry Adams wrote of the event, "some careful manipulation, as well as the direct influence of the new President, was needed before this measure...could be passed."

Having exposed the error in these assumptions about Lincoln that had been contradicted by DiLorenzo though denied by the Claremonsters, we may now turn to Masugi's argument in this statement. In the simplest of terms Masugi is asserting that, holding the other two assertions to be true, DiLorenzo concludes by default that Lincoln's real motivation was the Whig economic agenda. This assertion is a straw man, as DiLorenzo's argument on Lincoln's economic beliefs is based upon Lincoln's espousal of those beliefs throughout his career - not some random conclusion that since it wasn't X and Y, it must by default be Z. Extensive passages of DiLorenzo's book are devoted to Lincoln's career as a proponent of protectionism, and Lincoln's own words right up to the war indicate he held this belief strongly:

"I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views." - Lincoln to Edward Wallace, October 11, 1859

Lincoln espoused his tariff views strongly in a speech given only weeks before of his inauguration. It pertained to the Morrill tariff bill, which had long since passed the House and was up for debate in the Senate. In the plainest of language and on the eve of the war, Lincoln told his audience that the tariff, which the South vehemently opposed, was a top priority:

"According to my political education, I am inclined to believe that the people in the various sections of the country should have their own views carried out through their representatives in Congress, and if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff."- Lincoln at Pittsburgh, February 15, 1861

VI. "The South's call for low tariffs became a demand for preserving an agricultural economy based on slavery. To view the conflict between North and South as primarily one of two incompatible economic systems obscures the central place of slavery."

Masugi fails to substantiate his first assertion and proceeds as if it were fact upon his statement. In reality, common sense economics dictate that Southern opposition to the tariff stemmed from the economic detriments incurred by the South by the presence of protectionist industrial tariffs. A protectionist tariff functions by raising the price of a foreign import by way of the tax imposed upon it. When raised by a tariff, a comparatively cheap foreign good's price may become equal to or higher than an otherwise more expensive but protected domestically produced substitute. Accordingly the market shifts to favor the protected domestic good, which is, thanks to the tariff, the cheaper of the two. That domestic good will still cost more than the foreign substitute absent the tariff, therefore persons who stand to gain from the presence of a cheaper foreign good will oppose the tariff while the protected industries will support it. That is exactly what the South faced in 1861. Tariffs benefited northern industries by shifting the market to them and denying persons outside of the northern industries the benefits of free trade.

Masugi's second assertion is itself ironic, as it better applies to his own position when flipped than to any tariff-oriented argument - To view the conflict between North and South as one of slavery and virtually nothing else, as Masugi does, obscures the complexity of the conflict itself by denying even the simplest consideration of any factor beyond that narrow pre-set parameter. To be sure, reducing the entirety of the war to a tariff difference is not without its own fallacy, but just as much if not more is true of slavery reductionism, and the latter is firmly adhered to as an immovable doctrine by many in the Claremonster school. Rather than objecting to attempts of another to interpret the conflict as exclusively economic, they seem to object to any interpretation of the conflict that is not exclusively slavery.

VII. "Progressivism was based on the same historical-evolutionary brand of thought, dating back to Rousseau, that justified black slavery as the cornerstone of Confederate civilization. And Progressivism begat modern megastate liberalism."

Masugi's argument in this case, that leftism emerged out of the same strain of thought as the confederacy, is not only bizarre but wholly unsubstantiated in his article. He simply asserts it to be so, accepts his self-assertion as fact, and moves on as if it were the case. The entirety of his statement may be rejected as quickly as the whim in which it was made. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

If one does, however, investigate this assertion further, its falsehoods are similarly evident. Masugi's assertion is presumably based upon the writings of the Abratollah, which basically attempt to force a bizarre theory on the evolution of liberalism from John C. Calhoun to the Confederacy to both Adolph Hitler and modern leftism. Jaffa's attempted connection is uneasy, if not wholly unsubstantiated. Any honest examination of the political evolution that led to Hitler and National Socialism traces its origins to the synthesis of Germanic nationalism and Hegelian Marxism by a group of relatively obscure far-left political philosophers who wrote in Germany during the first world war. All of these writers were direct products of various communist movements drawn upon what their writings asserted, Marx und Hegel. The theory of national socialism, as with its counterpart theory of socialism that still dominates modern leftism, emerged heavily out of the life breathed into it by Karl Marx and his successors. As evidenced by the writings of Marx himself, the marxist movement's interpretation of the War Between the States has been thoroughly aligned with the North, not the South, since the very first shot was fired in 1861. They saw the Northern cause, albeit through shaded glasses, as being purely a struggle of liberation for the working man and sung praises of that which came out of it under Lincoln's guidance. Marx himself expressed this interpretation in a letter to Lincoln in 1864:

"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world." - Marx, November 29, 1864

Contrary to Masugi's interpretation, Marx, in the plainest of terms, saw his leftist cause advanced into a new stage of historical evolution by the Northern victory over the Confederacy he detested and spent his time attacking throughout the war.

VIII. "Some libertarians would not see a paradox in a liberty to own slaves and thus to enslave oneself: This is precisely DiLorenzo's position stripped of all its pretensions"

This attempt to characterize a position of DiLorenzo is yet another unsupported assertion of Masugi's, made on a whim and inserted as if it were so by its very presence alone. Masugi offers no evidence though that anything of DiLorenzo's even remotely approaches that position. Any honest reading of The Real Lincoln recognizes that, when applicable, DiLorenzo is harshly critical of slavery itself as an institution and even acknowledges that fighting a war to end it could be justice, if it were truly the reason for that war. This however was not the case with Lincoln.

IX. "Others on the right, such as Russell Kirk, Robert Bork, and Robert Kraynak have criticized the Declaration for being French, nihilistic, or irreligious."

Masugi's assertion here is aimed at a branch of conservatives who have taken Constitution-oriented views of proper American government, citing the Declaration as an important however somewhat problematic document. The Abratollah and his followers tend to hold otherwise, forwarding an argument that orients American government around the Declaration and asserts the document to have been perfected by the ideals embodied in Abraham Lincoln. In actuality, the major traditional conservative criticism of the DoI relates to its thoroughly Lockean philosophical base. Instead they turn to the much more solid and traditional philosophical bases found elsewhere in the founding documents. The Jaffa school has instead long tried to reconcile and rectify the Lockean problem, often through Lincoln as mentioned above. As a side note, for those who wonder what problems Locke, a figure frequently embraced by many conservatives, presents - read the logical fulfillment of his ideas as expressed in David Hume's Enquiry. From there it will become fairly obvious how post-modern leftism emerged in later centuries and the empiricist predecessors out of which it stems.

X. "But in two magnificent works, Crisis of the House Divided and A New Birth of Freedom, Harry V. Jaffa captured Lincoln's teaching about our founding principles. Jaffa demonstrated how tradition, majoritarianism, revelation, and latter-day states' rights arguments cannot provide for liberty, human excellence, and republican limited government as well as the natural-rights teaching of the Declaration as sublimely articulated by Abraham Lincoln"

In this concluding sentence, Masugi inadvertently concedes what this is really all about - a combination plug for the Abratollah's books and an intellectually light weight trashing of a major opposition, found in DiLorenzo. At least this statement of Masugi's is consistent with the rest of his book "review" - it consists of nothing more than a blind assertion of whim. Nowhere does Masugi bother to explain how Jaffa "demonstrated" all the things he alleges, nor does he even elaborate upon them. He simply asserts them to be true. The conclusion gives an appearance of an intention that the reader, at this point, to accept the Abratollah's word on faith, conclude the error of contrary positions by default, and join the Claremonster in its practice of genuflecting toward their worldly leader, his secular deity of Lincoln, and the glorious concept of "The Union" embodied in all three. As with all false gods though, their fraudulence is immediately revealed by exposure to a simple dose of truth and common sense.

[TexConfederate1861]

Let me guess...you think that arresting them for pro-secessionist views was justified?

[GOPcapitalist]

Of course he does. For him to think otherwise would be a concession of a fault on Lincoln's part. Walt is firmly convinced that his false deity is faultless.

[Ditto]

Let me guess...you think that arresting them for pro-secessionist views was justified?

Yep. It was justified. And Lincoln didn't hang them as the Texans did to people with pro-Union views.

[PeaRidge]

And here's a factual error right at the top

Your contention and their Opinion doesn't prove error.

Sam Houston

"I believe..." --

President Lincoln

"It may well be questioned..."

This is all just commentary, not data.

"I believe..." and "It may well..." is nothing. Here is the data

After South Carolina seceded, (1/9/1861—2/1/1861) six other states seceded. Mississippi (1/9) on a vote of 85-15; Florida (1/10) 62-7; Alabama (1/11) on a vote of 61-39; Georgia (1/19) 208-89; Louisiana (1/26) 113-17; Texas (2/1) voting 166-8.

So, in reality, this comment ->Lincoln went to war to prevent the formation of a government by a clear majority of the southern people<-is in fact supported by historical voting records.

[Non-Sequitur]

No, only the ones who opposed him politically.

Something Davis was want to do as well, which is precisely my point. You condemn Lincoln and give Davis a free ride.

[Non-Sequitur]

Its got its time and place, but it is also wholly irrelevant as a rebuttal to the documentation of Lincoln's violations.

Why not here? Why not now?

[GOPcapitalist]

Why not here? Why not now?

If you want to start another thread on it right now, go for it. But this one's already taken by another topic - the Claremonster attacks on DiLorenzo.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, the topic of Jefferson Davis is applicable as an example of DiLusional's lack of academic honesty. Next thing you know you'll be claiming that Tommy presents a 'fair and balanced' picture.

[GOPcapitalist]

Well, the topic of Jefferson Davis is applicable as an example of DiLusional's lack of academic honesty

So the fact that he doesn't advocate your agenda in a book that isn't even about Jefferson Davis to begin with to begin with makes him academically dishonest? Your lack of logical capacity is embarrassing to your cause.

[Non-Sequitur]

So the fact that he doesn't advocate your agenda in a book that isn't even about Jefferson Davis to begin with to begin with makes him academically dishonest?

No, Tommy anyone elses agenda. He, and you, can cling to the one he has now. But I will submit that your continuous condemnation of Lincoln while refusing to discuss the far greater crimes of Jeff Davis is the embarassment.

[confed2001]

After reading your article, and the remarks from several readers I am still amazed by the mass ignorance, and stupidity of many people past & present. In response to "WhiskeyPapa" (who needs to lay off the wiskey after reading that reply) several Southern states seceded from the Union by a majority vote of the people, such as Virginia, Tennasee, North Carolina, etc., etc., etc. Other Southern states such as Louisiana seceded because of the "people" demanding that their reprosentatives at the state level do so! All one has to do is research, and read the records.
The so-called Civil War was no more about slavery than World War 2 was about the Jewish people, and the holocaust, and the facts show this to be so. It is thanks to Lincoln & the republican party that we have big government to this very day, and such disastrous policies, and agencies such as corporate welfare, the I.R.S., and the first income tax ever!
Jefferson Davis is one of the most lied about people in history. If, as according to "Non- Sequitur" "Jeff Davis abused power, trampled rights installed government intervention and socialistic policies" the Confederacy would not have last one year. I suggest the "Non-Sequitur" change it's name to "No Brains". Davis "did not" order the arrest of one news paper editor, or force governmental controll of one single news paper. Nor did Davis arrest with out warrent one single person for simply speaking out against him! Compare that to Lincoln's more than 20,000 un-constutitional arrests in his time in office, or Mussolini, approx. 8,000 arrests in his more than 10 year rain!
With such brain washing that has been going on about this part of history for more than 140 years it is no wonder that people think with their rears instead of their heads. Joseph Goebbels would be very proud!!

[Non-Sequitur]

I suggest the "Non-Sequitur" change it's name to "No Brains".

I suggest that you do a bit of research of your own before you make an ass out of yourself. Jeff Davis didn't have one newspaper editor arrested, he had dozens. Davis didn't have one person arrested he had over 8,000. A figure which means that on a per capita basis the confederacy had more people jailed for political purposes than the 20,000 you claim for the North. You are a fool, sir, with no idea at all of what you are talking about. Jefferson Davis ignored the confederate constitution, placed levies on agricultural production and commercial shipping for the government, nationalized industries like textile and liquor, and ran unopposed in his elections. You are correct on one thing, though. The truth is there if you do the research and read the records. You ought to try it sometimes.

[Colt .45]

Sounds like your defense of Lincoln and critique of Jeff Davis is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Lincoln did nothing more than to constantly mug and roll the US Constitution during his years in office. He was an American version of Julius Caesar, only he never was able to establish himself as an absolute monarch. Read more of the Founders' intent, not your Yankee bilge history.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln did nothing more than to constantly mug and roll the US Constitution during his years in office.

I would say that Davis mugged his constitution but he went farther than that. He ignored whole sections in addition to his other crimes. And the thing of it is that not a single one of you southron fanatics is in the slightest bit bothered by it. You scream and rant and rave about Lincoln and the crimes you say he committed. But Jeff Davis locking up congressmen? So what. Jeff Davis ignoring the constitution and it's requirements about a judiciary? Who cares! Jeff Davis closing down newspapers? They deserved it! Jeff Davis declaring martial law? Big deal! You're the pot calling the kettle 'grimy arse' in this scenario, not me.

[Non-Sequitur]

He was an American version of Julius Caesar, only he never was able to establish himself as an absolute monarch.

All hail King Jeff! Appointed to office in the first place because the first three choices fell out of the running. Later elected, and I use that term losely, in an election where he ran unopposed. Lincoln should have had it so good.

[TexConfederate1861]

Yes...no doubt about it....you are a yellow-dog liberal if I ever saw one......if you believe it is right to arrest people for their different points of view, then you are just that.

And the Texans at Gainesville ACTED on their beliefs...big difference...so don't go there.

[TexConfederate1861]

Yep...he is a Unionist Lincoln-worshiping weasel...no doubt about it.

[WhiskeyPapa]

After South Carolina seceded, (1/9/1861—2/1/1861) six other states seceded. Mississippi (1/9) on a vote of 85-15; Florida (1/10) 62-7; Alabama (1/11) on a vote of 61-39; Georgia (1/19) 208-89; Louisiana (1/26) 113-17; Texas (2/1) voting 166-8.

Only ONE HUNDRED people lived in Mississippi? Wow.

I've got to check Nevins, but you are going to be very embarrassed.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lincoln did nothing more than to constantly mug and roll the US Constitution during his years in office.

Show it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Did you see this:

"While the agitation for reopening the African slave trade seemed growing, Northern sentiment was aghast at the thought that the traffic might already reach significant proportions. In this spring of i859 the Southern Commercial Convention, meeting at Vicksburg, significantly reversed its stand on the subject. It voted three to one for the repeal of all laws prohibiting the foreign slave trade, State or Federal, and some members were hot for a declaration that the Federal prohibitions ought to be flouted as unconstitutional." The convention had no sooner adjourned than an African Labor Supply Association, with the tireless De Bow as president, was organized to conduct a crusade for repeal.

Additional journals, such as the Richmond Whig, were demanding a renewal of the trade. Yancey and De Bow, in a widely publicized correspondence, called for the removal of the Act of 1810 from the statute books, for the government, declared Yancey, "should have no concern with slavery except to protect it."

Although part of this might be bravado, a deeper significance had to be attached to speeches of the most eminent Southern leaders. Alexander H. Stephens, retiring from Congress and, as he thought, from all public life, was tendered an impressive dinner at Augusta this summer. In his carefully prepared speech he asserted that the revival of the slave trade might be considered a necessity if the institutions of the South were to expand. States could not be made without people, and slave States could not be made without Negroes; unless the South had more Africans, it could not colonize more territory and might as well give up its race with the North. In the same month (July, 1859) Jefferson Davis made a defiant address to the Democratic State Convention at Jackson, Mississippi. He pronounced the law of 1820 insulting to the South, and added that he deemed it unconstitutional. It would be best, he thought, to leave the importation of Africans to the decision of the various States; he would oppose it for Mississippi, but other States might do as they pleased. What had been the result of the Federal law? "it has magnified the horrors of the middle passage; it has led to an alliance with Great Britain, by which we are bound to keep a naval squadron on the deadly coast of Africa....under the false plea of humanity; it has destroyed a lucrative trade for ivory, oil, and gold dust."

-"The Emergence Of Lincoln" p. 33 by Allen Nevins

N/S, do you know why you don't get a rise when you excoriate J. Davis?

The problem my damn Yankee friend, is that Lincoln's words live and breathe and animate and inspire. The words of Davis are as dead as he is -- they are as dead now as when he was living.

Lincoln is attacked by these sorry neo-reb sumbucks -- because he matters.

LONG LIVE THE UNITED STATES AND SUCCESS TO THE MARINES!

Walt